Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond annotations: it counts against the imports quota and that count is ignored (fixed ~10/page) for standard LinkedIn. It stops short of describing output shape, but the output schema covers that.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core purpose and quota note are front-loaded, which is good. However, the description restates the resource list twice ('LinkedIn, Sales Navigator, or Recruiter' appears in both the first and third clauses), which is redundant and slightly dilutes a short description.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a paged read tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations handling the safety profile, the description covers the remaining gaps: quota cost, pagination limits, and the salesnav_build_search_url prerequisite. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the schema already documents url, count, start, and account_id. The description adds real meaning beyond the schema by clarifying the count behavior for standard LinkedIn (fixed ~10/page) and framing start+count as a pagination pair, which the per-parameter schema text does not convey as a workflow.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Run one page of a LinkedIn, Sales Navigator, or Recruiter search and return normalized profile rows'), making clear it is a paged search-scrape, not a profile or post scraper. This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like scrape_profile, scrape_post, and salesnav_build_search_url.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says to run a search URL you already have, one page at a time, and names the prerequisite step ('build the Sales Navigator URL with salesnav_build_search_url first'). Pagination mechanics with start+count are also given, leaving nothing to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.